Recent Opinions

The world is full of unsolved problems. It is also full of problems for which solutions already exist, if we only leverage them. When we slow down for a minute, consider the available options, and more carefully assess the consequences of various modes of action, we have a better chance of directing our efforts where they ought to go–for the good of ourselves and the issues we face.

Matthew Cohen ’18 and Johnathan Bowes ’15 debate whether Puerto Rico should become the 51st state in the United States. Cohen urges us to question the previous votes in Puerto Rico as well as its tremendous debt while Bowes argues the US should respect the will of Puerto Ricans in whatever they choose.

OPINIONS

A response to “CS+X-traordinary” (May 15)

While I am grateful for Liam Kinney’s interest in the “CS+X” initiative (“CS+X –traordinary,” The Stanford Daily, May 15), a number of things troubled me about his op-ed. To go through all the problems his piece raises would take too much space. Instead, I will mention just a couple of points, one large and one small.

First, Kinney characterizes the Symbolic Systems program as “the next best thing to Computer Science.” This is a statement which is plainly wrong-headed — these two great and very popular Stanford majors have quite distinct aims and different intellectual foci. To speak of one as if it were the inferior fallback of the other is, to put it mildly, a disservice to both.

Second, Kinney blankly describes me as “directing” the CS+X initiative. That’s misleading. CS+X, building on an idea first suggested by CS professor Eric Roberts, is a collective project on which very many faculty and staff have collaborated intensively over the last year or so. While I direct the initiative within VPUE, each of the ten CS+X Joint Majors approved by the Faculty Senate is housed inside two partnering departments and is shaped, steered and administered by the faculty in these departments, not by me.

I’m very troubled by this response by Professor Jenkins of the English Department. Liam Kinney’s original article convincingly describes how Computer Science can be used to better understand the Classics. He gives an introduction to the CS+X program and shows how it could help enrich students’ lives while also preparing them for practical jobs. It’s clear that Kinney is advocating this program and even hints that it would have been a good fit for him, had it been introduced earlier. His article is well-written and overwhelmingly positive towards this new program.

Professor Jenkins’ rebuttal could not be more different in tone. It’s difficult to see a faculty member of a humanities department (let alone one of the central faculty members responsible for directing this program) blatantly attack a supporter. Language such as “To go through all the problems his piece raises would take too much space” is frankly shocking and inappropriate. What problems does this piece raise that Professor Jenkins cannot be troubled to go through? Would any student want to join a department where student writing is shot down as “plainly wrong-headed?”

I have never been more disappointed with the English department. Professor Jenkins owes Mr. Kinney an apology for attacking him in a public forum. Even if Professor Jenkins cannot deign to discuss “all the problems his piece raises,” he could at least give a background as to what this program is and praise students who are already taking the initiative to integrate science and humanities while encouraging them to seek out these new opportunities. The Stanford English Department faces dwindling enrollment and perhaps they should look to their faculty for the source. Would anyone be comfortable enrolling in the CS+X program knowing that any “interest” they have in the program could potentially “trouble” Professor Jenkins? Would anyone even want to study English or the Humanities in general with people like Professor Jenkins?

I urge Professor Jenkins to seriously reevaluate his article as it reflects poorly not only on him, but on the Stanford Humanities community as a whole.

Student

While I appreciate your concern for Liam Kinney, I also appreciate Jenkins’ honesty.
By posting his article on the daily, Liam is bravely exposing himself to the internet, and thus, many opinions.

Jenkins has that one snarky line you mentioned. Aside from that, though, I’m glad someone strongly corrected Kinney for trivializing Symbolic Systems.

Also, I think Jenkins was trying to show that he’s not the one in charge of everything and wanted to point that out. It probably bothered him that so many sources are pointing to just him as the one leading this initiative.

Anyway, all in all, just adding some more perspective. Jenkins probably should’ve addressed Kinney’s concerns about the Classics, but Jenkins wanted to address other stuff.

Jenkins’ response is really off the mark. As another poster noted below, Jenkins is listed as “Director of the CS+X Initiative” on the site actually announcing this program to undergraduates. This seems to justify Kinney’s “blankly describing [Jenkins] as ‘directing’ the CS+X initiative.” And then there’s the excessive degree of hostility of the letter as a whole. I’m disappointed in Jenkins for writing this.

Wow, it looks like CS+X is off to a great start! The “director” is claiming no responsibility and quashing student support. Let’s see how many more students Jenkins can attack! Get ready to watch this whole thing blow up next year!

Guest

“Director” implies a heirarchy with Professor Jenkins at the top. He is trying to dispel that “misleading” notion. In actuality, he is only directing the coordinating effort; he manages a decentralized academic program.

As such, he is right to criticize Liam for using the term “heading” the initiative. If Liam did a bit more research, he would have realized that Professor Jenkins is just one cog in the puzzle.

Submissions

Letters to the editor: E-mail Editor in Chief Joseph Beyda at eic@stanforddaily.com. Signed letters only. Students and alums, please include class year for publication. Non-students, please include city or University affiliation for publication. All: please include evening telephone number (not for publication). Word limit for letters: 500.

Op-eds: E-mail Managing Editor of Opinions Aimee Trujillo at opinions@stanforddaily.com. Students and alums, please include class year for publication. Non-students, please include city or University affiliation for publication. All: please include evening telephone number (not for publication). Word limit for op-eds: 700.

Opinions Columnists

Nick Ahamed The Muckraker

Mark Bessen The Fault in Our Systems

Winston ShiA More Perfect Union

Mysia AndersonEvolving

Johnathan Bowes Super Tuesday

Aimee TrujilloSuper Tuesday

Veronica Anorve Super Tuesday

Neil ChaudharyDouble Take

Mina ShahWednesdays in the World

Raven JiangQuoth the Raven

That’s what we said

This Board is worried by the increasing homogeneity of experience on campus. Stanford University is not doing enough to encourage the creative, wacky, eccentric environment that has made Stanford different — and an oasis — for decades. Rather than following the other prestigious universities, we should chart our own course that pushes students to think differently and act differently, if they so choose. —Vol. 246 Editorial Board